24 ms·

There does not seem to be any incentive for government to self-police or act within the scope and bounds of the constitution. It seems if we are going to have

There does not seem to be any incentive for government to self-police or act within the scope and bounds of the constitution. It seems if we are going to have any sort of chance at pre 9/11 level of freedoms there needs to be more push back from citizens and non-profits. This reminds me of the American Civil Liberties Union slogan. 'Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself.' I am cautiously optimistic and giving monthly to those who are on the front lines of this protracted struggle.

VikingCoder 11y ago
Picture Congress grilling someone in hearings, and then demanding they be fired. A few dozen times. Then there's an attack, and the President gets to lecture us about weakening security. Then everybody hangs their heads and lets the agencies do whatever they want again. I personally believe our representatives in Congress are terrified of being the one blamed for weakening our security.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Picture the attack being something agencies knew for months but decided to let happen to teach people a lesson and revamp their operations... (Yeah, that would never happen...)
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  This, of course, makes the assumption that such monitoring actually does make our security stronger. But there's a lot of reason to doubt this. Most recently, the shooting at Garland, TX. It seems the FBI knew about this ahead of time, and did a spectacularly bad job of warning the local authorities. But the attack was averted anyway, and according to the police chief there... What does this all mean? Not much says Police Chief Bates, "Please note that the contents of that email would not have prevented the shooting nor would it have changed the law enforcement response in any fashion." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/texas-police-were-warned-about-gunmen-at-muhammad-cartoon-event-and-they-werent http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/tex...
  - VikingCoder 11y ago
    No, it makes the assumption that the public can be convinced that monitoring makes our security stronger. There's an enormous world of difference between those two things.

VikingCoder 11y ago

Picture Congress grilling someone in hearings, and then demanding they be fired. A few dozen times. Then there's an attack, and the President gets to lecture us about weakening security. Then everybody hangs their heads and lets the agencies do whatever they want again. I personally believe our representatives in Congress are terrified of being the one blamed for weakening our security.

coldtea 11y ago
Picture the attack being something agencies knew for months but decided to let happen to teach people a lesson and revamp their operations... (Yeah, that would never happen...)
CWuestefeld 11y ago
This, of course, makes the assumption that such monitoring actually does make our security stronger. But there's a lot of reason to doubt this. Most recently, the shooting at Garland, TX. It seems the FBI knew about this ahead of time, and did a spectacularly bad job of warning the local authorities. But the attack was averted anyway, and according to the police chief there... What does this all mean? Not much says Police Chief Bates, "Please note that the contents of that email would not have prevented the shooting nor would it have changed the law enforcement response in any fashion." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/texas-police-were-warned-about-gunmen-at-muhammad-cartoon-event-and-they-werent http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/tex...
- VikingCoder 11y ago
  No, it makes the assumption that the public can be convinced that monitoring makes our security stronger. There's an enormous world of difference between those two things.